Leeks v. St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust & Ors (PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Costs) [2018] UKEAT 0072_18_1806 (18 June 2018)

Leeks v. St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust & Ors (PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Costs) [2018] UKEAT 0072_18_1806 (18 June 2018)

Employment Tribunal had jurisdiction to make a global costs order in favour of all Respondents as costs were incurred on behalf of all; Rule 74(1) definition includes costs incurred by or on behalf of receiving party; Rule 75 must be read in light of this; no requirement for individual assessment of costs for each Respondent; appeal against refusal of reconsideration fails as underlying complaint was out of time.

Citation
[2018] UKEAT 0072_18_1806
Parties
Appellant: Ms Nkechi Leeks; First Respondent: St George's Healthcare NHS Trust; Second Respondent: Miss Charlotte Musto; Third Respondent: Mrs Anne Morris
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
18 June 2018
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal Tribunal / Appeal Against Refusal of Reconsideration
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Costs, Reconsideration, Disability Accommodations, Jurisdiction
Employment Law Civil Procedure Costs Reconsideration Disability Accommodations Jurisdiction

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ms Nkechi Leeks

Appellant

St George's Healthcare NHS Trust

First Respondent

Miss Charlotte Musto

Second Respondent

Mrs Anne Morris

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal Tribunal / Appeal Against Refusal of Reconsideration

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Employment Tribunal had jurisdiction to make a global costs order in favour of all Respondents
  2. 2 Whether reconsideration should have been granted based on costs order
  3. 3 Whether costs must be incurred individually by each Respondent to be a 'receiving party'

Ratio Decidendi

Employment Tribunal had jurisdiction to make a global costs order in favour of all Respondents as costs were incurred on behalf of all; Rule 74(1) definition includes costs incurred by or on behalf of receiving party; Rule 75 must be read in light of this; no requirement for individual assessment of costs for each Respondent; appeal against refusal of reconsideration fails as underlying complaint was out of time.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Application for adjournment refused
  • Appeal against refusal of reconsideration dismissed